Streaming query

I've become curious about what streaming audio/video is all about.

For years now I've had pcs with shared folders that contain multi-media
material that is accessible from all the pcs in the house. Three of the
pcs are hooked up with video out to a tv and audio sent to the
accompanying stereo. When you want to watch something you simply select
the proper input for that tv and then access the network share, select
what you want and it plays on that system. Has wrked fine ever since got
first video card had video out on it more than a decade ago now. I do
not think of this as streaming.

Because this ability has been around for years now I don't really
understand this streaming business when it's in house. For example, why
does Windows want to stream anything when it's so easy "my way"?

So I'm thinking the streaming must be for devices that can't decode
anything themselves, e.g. tv's. The stream is not the raw "data" in the
usual sense I think of it but rather what's sent down the wire is
something else. If so, what?

It's obvious when it's the Internet (and money) involved but ... again,
why the streaming for personal in house use?

pjp wrote:

I've become curious about what streaming audio/video is all about.

For years now I've had pcs with shared folders that contain multi-media
material that is accessible from all the pcs in the house. Three of the
pcs are hooked up with video out to a tv and audio sent to the
accompanying stereo. When you want to watch something you simply select
the proper input for that tv and then access the network share, select
what you want and it plays on that system. Has wrked fine ever since got
first video card had video out on it more than a decade ago now. I do
not think of this as streaming.

Because this ability has been around for years now I don't really
understand this streaming business when it's in house. For example, why
does Windows want to stream anything when it's so easy "my way"?

So I'm thinking the streaming must be for devices that can't decode
anything themselves, e.g. tv's. The stream is not the raw "data" in the
usual sense I think of it but rather what's sent down the wire is
something else. If so, what?

It's obvious when it's the Internet (and money) involved but ... again,
why the streaming for personal in house use?


I think you're spot on. That is streaming.
What's changed is similar to what's changed with "The Cloud". Very
little, but they've developed software to use it more efficiently; with
syncing across devices, sharing, linking to Facebook and Twitter.

"Streaming" has acquired better PR, with a glossy sales brochure. Plus a
bit added by Smart TVs and hifi, and their software to link to your network.

Stick with what you have. You obviously know what you're doing.

Ed

On 11/8/2015 10:17 AM, pjp wrote:

I've become curious about what streaming audio/video is all about.

For years now I've had pcs with shared folders that contain multi-media
material that is accessible from all the pcs in the house. Three of the
pcs are hooked up with video out to a tv and audio sent to the
accompanying stereo. When you want to watch something you simply select
the proper input for that tv and then access the network share, select
what you want and it plays on that system. Has wrked fine ever since got
first video card had video out on it more than a decade ago now. I do
not think of this as streaming.

Because this ability has been around for years now I don't really
understand this streaming business when it's in house. For example, why
does Windows want to stream anything when it's so easy "my way"?

So I'm thinking the streaming must be for devices that can't decode
anything themselves, e.g. tv's. The stream is not the raw "data" in the
usual sense I think of it but rather what's sent down the wire is
something else. If so, what?

It's obvious when it's the Internet (and money) involved but ... again,
why the streaming for personal in house use?


I enjoy listening to classical and other music. I have a large
collection of vinyl, cassettes, and CDs. However, my little home office
on the second floor of my house is not large enough for my music system,
which instead is on the first floor. This makes even wiring speakers
into my office impractical since I would have to run down and then up
stairs every time a medium has to be changed.

Instead, I have several applications on my PC that can stream radio
broadcasts to my PC's speakers. See my
http://www.rossde.com/music.html for details.

--
David E. Ross

Is Kim Davis a hero or a villain? See my
http://www.rossde.com/KimDavis.html.

On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 12:08:40 -0800, David E. Ross wrote:
Instead, I have several applications on my PC that can stream radio
broadcasts to my PC's speakers. See my
http://www.rossde.com/music.html for details.


Your link to Passionato gave me a "server not found", but a couple of
the other links there are new to me. Thanks!


--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

I recently bought laptop with Miracast/WiDi and can wirelessly cast video,
audio or mirror screen to Smart TV. I use a soundbar for better audio but
can easily be connected to hi-fi too.
Daughter has older laptop & TV and can do similar using Chromecast dongle,
main difference is with Miracast it goes directly to TV, with Chromecast it
goes via router.

Kenny

"Stan Brown" wrote in message
t...

On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 12:08:40 -0800, David E. Ross wrote:
Instead, I have several applications on my PC that can stream radio
broadcasts to my PC's speakers. See my
http://www.rossde.com/music.html for details.


Your link to Passionato gave me a "server not found", but a couple of
the other links there are new to me. Thanks!


--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 11/8/2015 2:03 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 12:08:40 -0800, David E. Ross wrote:
Instead, I have several applications on my PC that can stream radio
broadcasts to my PC's speakers. See my
http://www.rossde.com/music.html for details.


Your link to Passionato gave me a "server not found", but a couple of
the other links there are new to me. Thanks!

I deleted the entry for Passionato.

--
David E. Ross

Is Kim Davis a hero or a villain? See my
http://www.rossde.com/KimDavis.html.

In article , says...

pjp wrote:

I've become curious about what streaming audio/video is all about.

For years now I've had pcs with shared folders that contain multi-media
material that is accessible from all the pcs in the house. Three of the
pcs are hooked up with video out to a tv and audio sent to the
accompanying stereo. When you want to watch something you simply select
the proper input for that tv and then access the network share, select
what you want and it plays on that system. Has wrked fine ever since got
first video card had video out on it more than a decade ago now. I do
not think of this as streaming.

Because this ability has been around for years now I don't really
understand this streaming business when it's in house. For example, why
does Windows want to stream anything when it's so easy "my way"?

So I'm thinking the streaming must be for devices that can't decode
anything themselves, e.g. tv's. The stream is not the raw "data" in the
usual sense I think of it but rather what's sent down the wire is
something else. If so, what?

It's obvious when it's the Internet (and money) involved but ... again,
why the streaming for personal in house use?


I think you're spot on. That is streaming.
What's changed is similar to what's changed with "The Cloud". Very
little, but they've developed software to use it more efficiently; with
syncing across devices, sharing, linking to Facebook and Twitter.

"Streaming" has acquired better PR, with a glossy sales brochure. Plus a
bit added by Smart TVs and hifi, and their software to link to your network.

Stick with what you have. You obviously know what you're doing.

Ed

Ed, wasn't thinking of changing anything. Why would I when it all works
so well as is

Today was my 65th bday and as a present I got a VGA to Composite Output
device. Nice little unit passes thru the vga port to existing monitor
but also taps off a composite output for older tvs. Wanted something to
do this for awhile now and was afraid tech would be long gone before I
found one. Means no longer have to use some video card with tv-out
ability anymore and surely the VGA connector isn't going anywhere real
soon although HDMI does seem to be wanting to take over. Means I can now
connect my newer laptop to a tv as it came without any means to do so
except the external vga port.

pjp wrote:
In article , says...

pjp wrote:

I've become curious about what streaming audio/video is all about.

For years now I've had pcs with shared folders that contain multi-media
material that is accessible from all the pcs in the house. Three of the
pcs are hooked up with video out to a tv and audio sent to the
accompanying stereo. When you want to watch something you simply select
the proper input for that tv and then access the network share, select
what you want and it plays on that system. Has wrked fine ever since got
first video card had video out on it more than a decade ago now. I do
not think of this as streaming.

Because this ability has been around for years now I don't really
understand this streaming business when it's in house. For example, why
does Windows want to stream anything when it's so easy "my way"?

So I'm thinking the streaming must be for devices that can't decode
anything themselves, e.g. tv's. The stream is not the raw "data" in the
usual sense I think of it but rather what's sent down the wire is
something else. If so, what?

It's obvious when it's the Internet (and money) involved but ... again,
why the streaming for personal in house use?


I think you're spot on. That is streaming.
What's changed is similar to what's changed with "The Cloud". Very
little, but they've developed software to use it more efficiently; with
syncing across devices, sharing, linking to Facebook and Twitter.

"Streaming" has acquired better PR, with a glossy sales brochure. Plus a
bit added by Smart TVs and hifi, and their software to link to your network.

Stick with what you have. You obviously know what you're doing.

Ed

Ed, wasn't thinking of changing anything. Why would I when it all works
so well as is

Today was my 65th bday and as a present I got a VGA to Composite Output
device. Nice little unit passes thru the vga port to existing monitor
but also taps off a composite output for older tvs. Wanted something to
do this for awhile now and was afraid tech would be long gone before I
found one. Means no longer have to use some video card with tv-out
ability anymore and surely the VGA connector isn't going anywhere real
soon although HDMI does seem to be wanting to take over. Means I can now
connect my newer laptop to a tv as it came without any means to do so
except the external vga port.


I find wireless technology very good these days. I have a network around
the house that I set up among lots of PCs, tablets, pads and phones. It
works fine; all through a simple ISP-supplied router.
I was a bit wary to begin with because my front door bell used to ring
occasionally when nobody was there. I got a newer one, and tried
different channels, and there's no interference now.
I also have a gas boiler in the garage that communicates wirelessly with
a thermostat in the house. That seems ok too.
As for the router, I tailored it with the free inSSIDer program; and
that's just fine too.

I'm all set to stream all around the house, whenever I want, wherever I
want and if ever I want. I even have some mobile speakers and a TV
soundbar. I've tested them all out; especially with Bluetooth.
And that's it basically. I got it all set up and working because I love
doing things like that. But I hardly ever use it.

Another thing, as well. I listen to radio quite a lot. I've had all the
radios on DAB for years, but I recently tried old FM. And blimey! It's
better than the DAB, which is only streamed at 128KBits here in the UK.
So I've switched them all over to FM and left them there.

I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl
records, with "retro" players.

Ed

In message , G.
Morgan writes:
pjp wrote:

Means I can now
connect my newer laptop to a tv as it came without any means to do so
except the external vga port.


I wouldn't buy a new lappy unless it had HDMI out or better.


And if you have a TV like pjp's that (I presume) only has composite
input, and want to - at least sometimes - drive it from the lappy?

IME, you rarely get three generations of output: HDMI and VGA, or VGA
and composite, but not all three.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you want to make people angry, lie to them. If you want to make them
absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.

In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
[]
Another thing, as well. I listen to radio quite a lot. I've had all the
radios on DAB for years, but I recently tried old FM. And blimey! It's
better than the DAB, which is only streamed at 128KBits here in the UK.

(It also is stuck with an inefficient coder - mp2, I think - on which
128K is not as good as 128K mp3 would be. Oh, hang on, you said
"streamed" - did you really mean streamed, or are you talking about
broadcast?)

So I've switched them all over to FM and left them there.

OK on that - yes, it's certainly better than DAB, most of the time and
on most stations.

I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl
records, with "retro" players.

But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to
streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest
bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will
sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD,
then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of
use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole
numbers of per cent ... (-:

Ed


John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you want to make people angry, lie to them. If you want to make them
absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
[]
Another thing, as well. I listen to radio quite a lot. I've had all
the radios on DAB for years, but I recently tried old FM. And blimey!
It's better than the DAB, which is only streamed at 128KBits here in
the UK.

(It also is stuck with an inefficient coder - mp2, I think - on which
128K is not as good as 128K mp3 would be. Oh, hang on, you said
"streamed" - did you really mean streamed, or are you talking about
broadcast?)

So I've switched them all over to FM and left them there.

OK on that - yes, it's certainly better than DAB, most of the time and
on most stations.

I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl
records, with "retro" players.

But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to
streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest
bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will
sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD,
then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of
use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole
numbers of per cent ... (-:

Ed


John

Nah! We've all been conned by the digital-is-best salesmen.
The population is getting older, and older ears don't hear as well.
But younger ones hear well enough. And they can hear the thin, drabby
stuff that comes through; and they want better, and go for it.

Ed

In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
[]
I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl
records, with "retro" players.

But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to
streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest
bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will
sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD,
then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of
use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole
numbers of per cent ... (-:

Ed


John

Nah! We've all been conned by the digital-is-best salesmen.
The population is getting older, and older ears don't hear as well.
But younger ones hear well enough. And they can hear the thin, drabby
stuff that comes through; and they want better, and go for it.

Ed

When digital _first_ appeared, i. e. CDs, it _was_ (and still is, if
audio-level compression can be held at bay) very fine, and "digital" did
indeed equate to high quality; whether really top-end analogue equipment
could beat it was possibly open to debate, but certainly (once the price
of CD players came down a bit), most people could afford a better CD
player than record player - not to mention the care needed to get the
best out of a top-end record player, and the convenience of the CD
format.

However, as time went on, and processing power was able to do on-the-fly
decompression (initially, the processors available - domestically, at
least - could just about handle the raw CD error-correcting, no
decompression), "digital" signals were data-compressed to the point that
the word no longer _guaranteed_ high quality. What data rates produce
something acceptable is a source of endless debate, of course.

Another aspect that seems to have vanished is speakers of any size; the
compactness of digital equipment seems to have - inevitably, one could
say - created compact equipment, which inevitably has smaller speakers
built into it. While not denying that speaker design has improved a
_bit_, I think this is probably part of the reason for "thin, drabby"
being associated with digital; if put through proper speakers [though
I'm not sure I'm familiar with the word drabby], _good_ digital can
sound good. Some of the even cheap record-players being sold now do at
least have sizeable speakers (if only because record-players tend to be
over a certain size!).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
[]
I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl
records, with "retro" players.

But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to
streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest
bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will
sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD,
then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of
use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole
numbers of per cent ... (-:

Ed


John

Nah! We've all been conned by the digital-is-best salesmen.
The population is getting older, and older ears don't hear as well.
But younger ones hear well enough. And they can hear the thin, drabby
stuff that comes through; and they want better, and go for it.

Ed

When digital _first_ appeared, i. e. CDs, it _was_ (and still is, if
audio-level compression can be held at bay) very fine, and "digital" did
indeed equate to high quality; whether really top-end analogue equipment
could beat it was possibly open to debate, but certainly (once the price
of CD players came down a bit), most people could afford a better CD
player than record player - not to mention the care needed to get the
best out of a top-end record player, and the convenience of the CD
format.

However, as time went on, and processing power was able to do on-the-fly
decompression (initially, the processors available - domestically, at
least - could just about handle the raw CD error-correcting, no
decompression), "digital" signals were data-compressed to the point that
the word no longer _guaranteed_ high quality. What data rates produce
something acceptable is a source of endless debate, of course.

Fortunately CDs are still available, and with the higher quality DACs
available today, can sound better than they ever did. Most DACs are
poor, though, and many modern recordings are pre-ruined in the studio.

Another aspect that seems to have vanished is speakers of any size; the
compactness of digital equipment seems to have - inevitably, one could
say - created compact equipment, which inevitably has smaller speakers
built into it. While not denying that speaker design has improved a
_bit_, I think this is probably part of the reason for "thin, drabby"
being associated with digital; if put through proper speakers [though
I'm not sure I'm familiar with the word drabby], _good_ digital can
sound good. Some of the even cheap record-players being sold now do at
least have sizeable speakers (if only because record-players tend to be
over a certain size!).

I'm amazed by the fullness of sound available from quite small speakers
nowadays. But I think if I listened to one for any length of time, its
limitations would soon become apparent.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

In message , Mike Barnes
writes:
[]
Fortunately CDs are still available, and with the higher quality DACs
available today, can sound better than they ever did. Most DACs are
poor, though, and many modern recordings are pre-ruined in the studio.

Indeed - probably the worst culprit being audio-level compression.
(Which has the strange effect that old vinyls can be better than modern
CDs, at least as far as dynamic range is concerned - despite the
considerably more limited dynamic range of the medium.)
[]
I'm amazed by the fullness of sound available from quite small speakers
nowadays. But I think if I listened to one for any length of time, its

Indeed; they have come on a lot - and also, battery technology _really_
has, so it's practical to just throw a lot more power at them than it
used to be.

limitations would soon become apparent.

Indeed. My old Solavoxes still sound good. (And they weren't
particularly high quality [It was one of the pen-names of Amstrad, I
think]! Just not ported.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, when he looked up his name in the dictionary.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ed Cryer
writes:
[]
I'm getting a feel for why so many younger people are using old vinyl
records, with "retro" players.

But not so sure about that: it depends what they're comparing to. If to
streamed or other mp3 (or other) which has been encoded at the lowest
bitrate someone thinks they can get away with, then yes, vinyl will
sound better. If to _un_compressed (in both bitrate and amplitude!) CD,
then I'd say they are fooling themselves (not to mention convenience of
use). A _good_ record player cartridge has distortion in the whole
numbers of per cent ... (-:

Ed


John

Nah! We've all been conned by the digital-is-best salesmen.
The population is getting older, and older ears don't hear as well.
But younger ones hear well enough. And they can hear the thin, drabby
stuff that comes through; and they want better, and go for it.

Ed

When digital _first_ appeared, i. e. CDs, it _was_ (and still is, if
audio-level compression can be held at bay) very fine, and "digital" did
indeed equate to high quality; whether really top-end analogue equipment
could beat it was possibly open to debate, but certainly (once the price
of CD players came down a bit), most people could afford a better CD
player than record player - not to mention the care needed to get the
best out of a top-end record player, and the convenience of the CD format.

However, as time went on, and processing power was able to do on-the-fly
decompression (initially, the processors available - domestically, at
least - could just about handle the raw CD error-correcting, no
decompression), "digital" signals were data-compressed to the point that
the word no longer _guaranteed_ high quality. What data rates produce
something acceptable is a source of endless debate, of course.

Another aspect that seems to have vanished is speakers of any size; the
compactness of digital equipment seems to have - inevitably, one could
say - created compact equipment, which inevitably has smaller speakers
built into it. While not denying that speaker design has improved a
_bit_, I think this is probably part of the reason for "thin, drabby"
being associated with digital; if put through proper speakers [though
I'm not sure I'm familiar with the word drabby], _good_ digital can
sound good. Some of the even cheap record-players being sold now do at
least have sizeable speakers (if only because record-players tend to be
over a certain size!).

Yes, I think you've captured the process very well there.
I remember the early days of digital. At a time when we were all
acclimatised to analogue, the Deutsche Grammophon digital recordings
sounded much better; even on musicassttes.
And once we'd heard those we went for digital every time. I remember
that I would only buy digital eventually.

Ed